Learning and Teaching Committee
LTC06-M1
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2006
Present: Morag Bell (in the Chair), Simon Austin, Paul
Byrne, John Dickens
Becky Dicks, Martin Harrison, Katie Hyslop (ab),
Jennifer Nutkins, Iain Phillips, Jan Tennant (ab), David Twigg, Andrew
Wilson
Apologies: Katie Hyslop, Jan Tennant
In attendance:
Robert Bowyer
06/01 Business of the Agenda
No
items were unstarred.
06/02 Minutes
LTC05-M4
The
Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2005 were
confirmed.
06/03 Matters Arising from the Minutes not otherwise
appearing on the Agenda
3.1 Learning and Teaching Strategy (M.05/55)
It was noted that a revised version of the document
had been received by Senate on 25 January 2006.
3.2 Wolfson
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering PPR (M.05/58.2)
It was noted that the ‘University issues’ at
the end of the report had been investigated by the AD(T) Engineering and
clarified by the PDQ Team.
3.3 The
It was noted that an amended response had been despatched
to UUK after consultation with HODs following the last meeting.
3.4 Proposals
for National Credit Arrangements for Use of Academic Credit (M05/59.2)
It was noted that an
amended response had been despatched to UUK following the last meeting.
3.5 Use
of HEFCE e-learning capital funding (M.05/60)
LTC06-P1
The Committee noted allocations approved by
Operations Sub-Committee on 5 December 2005.
3.6 Student
Diversity Working Group (M.05/63)
It was noted that the first meeting of the Group had
taken place on 14 December 2005.
3.7 Calculators
in University Examinations (M.05/67)
LTC06-P2
The Committee noted
action taken by the Chair.
3.8 Senate actions on other recommendations
It was noted that Senate had approved the
recommendations of the Committee in the following other matters:
(i)
Terms
of Reference (M.05/53)
(ii)
Master
of Research (MRes) (M.05/56)
(iii)
Terms
of Reference of CSC (M.05/57.1)
(iv)
New
programmes and strategic changes (M.05/57.2)
(v)
Co-ordination
of joint degrees (M.05/62)
(vi)
External
Examining – Revised Code of Practice (M.05/64.2)
06/04 Open source VLE
LTC06-P3
The
Committee received a report on proposals currently under consideration for the
adoption of ‘Moodle’, an open source VLE, as a replacement for
‘Learn’. Those involved were
confident that it could provide the pedagogic features necessary and result in
a significant improvement in both the quality and quantity of online resources.
The
same paper would be submitted to the LUSI Project Steering Group and
Information Services Committee, to keep these bodies informed. There would need to be further discussions
with the DISS service directors about resourcing, timescales and management
structures. In terms of timing, it was
hoped to move forward quickly in order to take full advantage of a brief window
of opportunity offered by two sources of HEFCE funding, namely funds for
e-learning, and funds for learning and teaching enhancement (expected to
replace TQEF). A critical consideration
would be whether the project could be brought forward without disrupting the
LUSI timetable, whilst still allowing for the necessary linkages to LUSI
developments to be covered.
It was
noted that there would be a responsibility to the open source community and
ongoing development costs associated with the adoption of Moodle. By comparison, institutions using commercial
packages had to find the resources needed to respond to software updates.
The
Committee expressed its support for the proposals.
06/05 Timetabling
LTC06-P4
The
Committee received a briefing paper from the Director of Media Services on
actions being taken to investigate a possible move to central timetabling. The following comments were noted in the
course of discussion:
(i) The Departmental
Administrators played a key role and the Director of Media Services would attend
the Registry’s March meeting with the administrators in order to brief
them.
(ii) It would not be the
intention to take control of departmental rooms away from departments, but it
would be necessary for departments to provide information about their bookings
in order to construct web-accessible timetables for individual staff and
students.
(iii) It would be helpful if
possible to put a figure on the cost savings that could be made by freeing up
administrative time in departments.
(iv) Risk reduction was
important: current arrangements were vulnerable to the absence of key members
of staff at crucial times.
(v) It was suggested that
the University should explore with potential suppliers the possibility of
carrying out a ‘dry-run’ on their system as part of the evaluation
phase.
(vi) It should be possible to
enter appropriate parameters into the system to avoid building undesirable
cross-campus journeys into timetables.
(vii) It was suggested that
the possibility of an open source solution might be considered.
(viii) It would be important
to ensure that staff did not infer that control and influence over the
timetable would be removed from departments, and to be generally sensitive to
the potential impact on staff morale.
06/06 Condonement
LTC06-P5
The Committee received a report
on further consultation with departments from the Programme Development &
Quality Team.
The
Committee found it surprising that opinion appeared to be so starkly divided
between Engineering and Science on the one hand and SSH on the other, given the
data on the use of condonement presented to the previous meeting. Although it was the case that differences in
programme regulations had always militated against consistency in outcomes from
one programme to another, and this had not been considered problematic, it was
suggested that differences between departments in the way that condonement was
or was not applied were more likely to be challenged. It was felt that this view was shared by
several SSH departments and explained their lack of support for retaining the
condonement provisions.
It was
noted that a majority of departments (outside SSH) had expressed a preference
for additional guidelines rather than tighter regulations to bring a greater
measure of control over the application of condonement. It was suggested that the key aims and
intentions ((i) and (ii) highlighted in Appendix 1 of the agenda paper) should
suffice as guidelines, since there was no consensus on the definition of
‘marginal failure’ or an ‘otherwise good pattern of
marks’ and opposition to a formulaic approach being imposed.
Following
further discussion, the Committee agreed to endorse the proposals from the PDQ
Team, which included a requirement that departments be required to produce
guidelines for their Programme Boards to indicate how condonement should
normally be used. The intention was that
these would be reviewed on an annual basis.
It was agreed that the sub-group referred to in proposal (ii) should
comprise the three AD(T)s.
The
Committee was of the view however that departments should not be permitted to
produce a blanket statement that they would not use condonement, and that
proposal (iii) should be deleted.
It was
resolved to advise Senate accordingly.
06/07 National Student Survey 2006
LTC06-P6
The
Committee received a progress report on the NSS 2006. It was noted that 433 responses (response
rate of 16.67%) had been recorded as of 8 February, one week since the start of
the survey. The Chair thanked the
Students’ Union, on behalf of the Committee, for their efforts in
promoting the survey and encouraging students to respond. It was the aim to improve on the 2005
response rate of 75% and maintain the University’s top position in the
results.
06/08 Quality
Enhancement
LTC06-P7
The
Committee received a report of a PDQ Team ‘away day’ on the theme
of quality enhancement. The day had been
prompted partly by the anticipation of further HEFCE funding for learning and
teaching enhancement, partly by a new emphasis on quality enhancement in the
revised approach to institutional audit.
There was a need to redefine and sharpen up what were defined as the
University’s strengths, and consider what aspects of teaching and
learning should be enhanced, not only to improve the experience of students but
also to take account of the needs of staff.
There was a general feeling that staff would welcome a shift in ethos
from policing to providing more help and support. Key points from the notes of the day’s
discussions were brought to the Committee’s attention.
There
was discussion on the issue of examination feedback. It was noted that within the SSH Faculty,
departments were being asked to ensure that for modules assessed largely by
examination, students subsequently received ‘generic feedback’ in
the form of an overview of the performance of the class as a whole. It was reported that some other departments
also provided this sort of feedback.
06/09 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (A)
LTC06-P8
It was
resolved to recommend new programme proposals and other strategic changes to
Senate on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee.
06/10 Coursework
Code of Practice
LTC06-P9
It was resolved to approve amendments to the University’s Coursework Code of Practice on the
advice of the PDQ Team.
06/11 Postgraduate Certificate and Diploma Awards on MRes
programmes
LTC06-P10
It was resolved to make
recommendations to Senate on the advice of the PDQ Team.
06/12 Curriculum
Sub-Committee – 12 January 2006 (B)
LTC06-P11
Further
discussions of the Sub-Committee were noted.
06/13 Student Feedback – Support Services
2004/05
LTC06-P12
The Committee received a report
from the Head of Academic Practice and Quality, Professional Development, on
student feedback 2004/05 in relation to the support services.
06/14 Validation
Panel
It was noted that Loughborough
College had put forward proposals for two new Foundation Degrees, in Sports
Coaching, and Sports Performance (initially with a pathway in Motorsport), and
a Validation Panel had been established to consider the proposals.
06/15 Student Diversity Working Group
LTC06-P13
The Committee received a report
of the meeting of the Working Group held on 14 December 2005.
06/16 QAA consultations
Recent consultation
papers from the Quality Assurance Agency were noted as followed:
16.1 Operational
description for the revised institutional audit process, CL14/05
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1405.asp
16.2 Revised
approach to programme specifications (incorporating guidance on minimum
content) CL15/05
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1505.asp
16.3 Proposals
for an interim review process as part of the revised institutional audit
process CL01/06
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL0106.asp
It was noted that the University
had responded to CL14/05; responses to CL15/05 and CL01/06 were under
consideration by the PDQ Team.
06/17 Date
of Next Meeting
Thursday
8 June 2006
NB
This meeting would take place at 1.30 pm to avoid a clash with Human
Resources Committee.
Author – Robert Bowyer
Date – February 2006
Copyright © Loughborough
University. All rights reserved